• UberPeople.NET - Independent community of rideshare drivers. It's FREE to be a person and enjoy all the benefits of membership. JOIN US! CLICK HERE

Lyft stops providing key data after IPO, then insults investors’ intelligence

jocker12

Well-Known Member
Lyft will no longer provide information on total revenue generated that would help determine how much drivers were taking home, says it is ‘to avoid investor confusion’

Lyft Inc. began life as a public company by taking away crucial information for investors, and insultingly insisted that it was for their own good.

When earnings arrived Tuesday, however, bookings and all the related information were nowhere to be found. When asked about it at the end of the company’s conference call, Chief Financial Officer Brian Roberts said that because Lyft is expanding beyond ride-hailing into bikes and scooters, investors just wouldn’t be able to understand the bookings data.

“Our historical business was virtually entirely a ride-sharing marketplace, and so we included bookings and take so investors could understand the monetization trends. We are now aggressively investing in new areas including those where revenue equals bookings and so we really wanted to try to avoid investor confusion,” Roberts said, while insisting that bookings were “absolutely a positive metric for us in the first quarter.”

While Lyft suggested that investors’ poor little brains just couldn’t handle a separate figure outlining the actual size of its business, that certainly wasn’t the case with the bottom line. Lyft offered investors several different versions of profitability, including GAAP and non-GAAP net income, GAAP and non-GAAP operating income, and adjusted Ebitda, with vast differences in all those numbers. Lyft even offered an extremely nontraditional “adjusted cash” figure in supplemental materials, so that it could add in the IPO proceeds even though the company received them after the quarter was over.

Lyft did not offer any other numbers that could provide visibility into the revenue breakdown, though. No separate revenue on its forays into shared bikes and scooters, nor expected financial information on its just-announced relationship with Waymo, the self-driving car business owned by Alphabet Inc. GOOG, -0.03%GOOGL, -0.07% .

The company said that it expects 2019 will be its peak year of losses, estimating adjusted Ebitda of more than $1.1 billion for the year, which means all its other ways of counting losses will lead to much higher totals. While Roberts said Lyft will then move “steadily toward profitability on a consolidated basis,” he did not detail exactly how Lyft executives expect it to become profitable.

Maybe that information would have been just too confusing for investors as well.

 

Bubsie

Well-Known Member
"Roberts said, while insisting that bookings were “absolutely a positive metric for us in the first quarter.”"

"A positive metric". Mr. Roberts, if you didn't have the balls to put the actual numbers in an SEC filing where there are repercussions for lying, we certainly don't believe the words coming out of your slimy mouth now.
 

goneubering

Well-Known Member
Lyft will no longer provide information on total revenue generated that would help determine how much drivers were taking home, says it is ‘to avoid investor confusion’

Lyft Inc. began life as a public company by taking away crucial information for investors, and insultingly insisted that it was for their own good.

When earnings arrived Tuesday, however, bookings and all the related information were nowhere to be found. When asked about it at the end of the company’s conference call, Chief Financial Officer Brian Roberts said that because Lyft is expanding beyond ride-hailing into bikes and scooters, investors just wouldn’t be able to understand the bookings data.

“Our historical business was virtually entirely a ride-sharing marketplace, and so we included bookings and take so investors could understand the monetization trends. We are now aggressively investing in new areas including those where revenue equals bookings and so we really wanted to try to avoid investor confusion,” Roberts said, while insisting that bookings were “absolutely a positive metric for us in the first quarter.”

While Lyft suggested that investors’ poor little brains just couldn’t handle a separate figure outlining the actual size of its business, that certainly wasn’t the case with the bottom line. Lyft offered investors several different versions of profitability, including GAAP and non-GAAP net income, GAAP and non-GAAP operating income, and adjusted Ebitda, with vast differences in all those numbers. Lyft even offered an extremely nontraditional “adjusted cash” figure in supplemental materials, so that it could add in the IPO proceeds even though the company received them after the quarter was over.

Lyft did not offer any other numbers that could provide visibility into the revenue breakdown, though. No separate revenue on its forays into shared bikes and scooters, nor expected financial information on its just-announced relationship with Waymo, the self-driving car business owned by Alphabet Inc. GOOG, -0.03%GOOGL, -0.07% .

The company said that it expects 2019 will be its peak year of losses, estimating adjusted Ebitda of more than $1.1 billion for the year, which means all its other ways of counting losses will lead to much higher totals. While Roberts said Lyft will then move “steadily toward profitability on a consolidated basis,” he did not detail exactly how Lyft executives expect it to become profitable.

Maybe that information would have been just too confusing for investors as well.

Wow. I’m starting to believe the posters who say the two top guys at Lyft can’t be trusted.
Post automatically merged:

Explain this!!

We are now aggressively investing in new areas including those where revenue equals bookings
 

Bubsie

Well-Known Member
If revenue equals bookings, they have no contra-revenue expenses? Magical SDCs thay they acquired for free? Given to them by their "partners" Toyota, Volvo and others? Maybe they stole a few containers worth of scooters?
 

Ballermaris

Active Member
Nothing confusing, all senior management and accountants graduated from Trump University, “aka, The Art of the Bull Crappola.”
Yeah it is apparent. And considering the Dictator in Chief Wannabe, lost over a billion dollars in less than 10 years, they did not learn. I expect they will follow in the dictators footsteps to bankruptcy somewhere down the road and will face a massive reorganization. They will be looking from the outside in when that happens.
 

jocker12

Well-Known Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #7
If revenue equals bookings, they have no contra-revenue expenses? Magical SDCs thay they acquired for free? Given to them by their "partners" Toyota, Volvo and others? Maybe they stole a few containers worth of scooters?
"CapitalG, the late-stage investing arm of Alphabet, invested $500 million in Lyft in October 2017 at $39.75 a share.

318720


If that share drops under $39.75, Google is a loser.

Waymo is not ready to go public with no geofence limitations in Phoenix, and Waymo vans on Lyft platform it will end in tears. It seems that, as long as Google fights to keep its Lyft and Uber stock as profitable as possible for them (to cover Waymo to date expenses), they are ok with the (soon to be) pain inflicted by their faulty technology.
 

Mista T

Well-Known Member
Author
Lyft (and Uber) lie to governments. They lie to drivers. They lie to passengers. They lie to the media. And now, they are lying to Wall Street. Fortunately, Wall Street responds by taking away money, in the form of lower stock prices.

Come on, Lyft, tell us in more detail about how you won't disclose "certain data" related to your revenue because you think that the public is too stupid to understand it.
 

nouberipo

Well-Known Member
"Roberts said, while insisting that bookings were “absolutely a positive metric for us in the first quarter.”"

"A positive metric". Mr. Roberts, if you didn't have the balls to put the actual numbers in an SEC filing where there are repercussions for lying, we certainly don't believe the words coming out of your slimy mouth now.
Just like when they came out and said that "the IPO was a great success". As William Barr, the US attorney general stated, there is no crime in lying. Its a new norm in our government and that norm is obviously trickling into business. Since they aren't putting the actual numbers in the SEC filings then they cannot be called liars UNLESS lying by ommission is considered. Anyone who invests in a company that uses vague language in SEC filings like "absolutely a positive metric" instead of the actual numbers deserves to have their money stolen by Lyft.
Post automatically merged:

Lyft (and Uber) lie to governments. They lie to drivers. They lie to passengers. They lie to the media. And now, they are lying to Wall Street. Fortunately, Wall Street responds by taking away money, in the form of lower stock prices.

Come on, Lyft, tell us in more detail about how you won't disclose "certain data" related to your revenue because you think that the public is too stupid to understand it.
When you have a President, Attorney General, and Congress all lying with impunity this tells businesses that they have carte blanche to do the same. There is no longer shame connected with lying in the US.....as long as it can result in your making a profit. Lying is the new currency in the US and profit before people is the new mantra.
 

jocker12

Well-Known Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #10
Lyft (and Uber) lie to governments. They lie to drivers. They lie to passengers. They lie to the media. And now, they are lying to Wall Street. Fortunately, Wall Street responds by taking away money, in the form of lower stock prices.

Come on, Lyft, tell us in more detail about how you won't disclose "certain data" related to your revenue because you think that the public is too stupid to understand it.
The way they look at it, what the public thinks is lying, they define as selling. More precisely, they tell people what people want to hear. In order to do that, they need to know their audience very well, and because they've got to this level and operated for so long, they are very proud of their lying/selling achievements.

From the beginning, rideshare was associated with very few key terms like - cheaper cost, less congestion, faster service, better asset utilization, convenient electronic instant payment, and less transportation environmental impact. Looking at this list the mass of naive riders almost instantly surrendered to the service. As long as they've valued the benefits and assumed they were paying the correct price, the public never bothered to ask or understand what was the real cost of this.

Nobody from the public, including the media, never thought there was a hidden price war between those two big players affecting their partner drivers income. The majority of the journalists and think tanks experts (see 2014 - "At Forrester, we call this the mobile mind shift: the expectation that a consumer can get what he or she wants immediately, in context. Uber delivers. In fact, Uber serves up exactly what its customers and drivers need in their mobile moments.") instead of scrutinizing the scam, jumped happily on the wagon of general admiration.

Nobody cared the drivers were using their own assets, suffering depreciation, maintaining and fueling "the miracle" from their own pockets. Nobody cared to listen to the drivers while most of those drivers liked the flexibility and the freedom sold to them by few Silicon Valley transportation business clueless entrepreneurs.

The same Silicon Valley people used and use the same psychological mechanisms to sell the lie of self-driving cars, presented to be the bright future of transportation (and also the path to the "potential" $1,6 trillion ride-share market value) but impossible to build at the 100% safe robot required standard.

Unfortunately for them dream sellers, the public stock market share value is their number one enemy, because the more lying and intelligence-insulting remarks they project on their shareowners, the more those owners will choose to sell those shares and stop the BS of losing their own money while continue betting on these ride share buffoons.

And all of the intelligent people know how "if more people wanted to sell a stock than buy it, there would be greater supply than demand, and the price would fall." Game Over.
 

goneubering

Well-Known Member
The way they look at it, what the public thinks is lying, they define as selling. More precisely, they tell people what people want to hear. In order to do that, they need to know their audience very well, and because they've got to this level and operated for so long, they are very proud of their lying/selling achievements.

From the beginning, rideshare was associated with very few key terms like - cheaper cost, less congestion, faster service, better asset utilization, convenient electronic instant payment, and less transportation environmental impact. Looking at this list the mass of naive riders almost instantly surrendered to the service. As long as they've valued the benefits and assumed they were paying the correct price, the public never bothered to ask or understand what was the real cost of this.

Nobody from the public, including the media, never thought there was a hidden price war between those two big players affecting their partner drivers income. The majority of the journalists and think tanks experts (see 2014 - "At Forrester, we call this the mobile mind shift: the expectation that a consumer can get what he or she wants immediately, in context. Uber delivers. In fact, Uber serves up exactly what its customers and drivers need in their mobile moments.") instead of scrutinizing the scam, jumped happily on the wagon of general admiration.

Nobody cared the drivers were using their own assets, suffering depreciation, maintaining and fueling "the miracle" from their own pockets. Nobody cared to listen to the drivers while most of those drivers liked the flexibility and the freedom sold to them by few Silicon Valley transportation business clueless entrepreneurs.

The same Silicon Valley people used and use the same psychological mechanisms to sell the lie of self-driving cars, presented to be the bright future of transportation (and also the path to the "potential" $1,6 trillion ride-share market value) but impossible to build at the 100% safe robot required standard.

Unfortunately for them dream sellers, the public stock market share value is their number one enemy, because the more lying and intelligence-insulting remarks they project on their shareowners, the more those owners will choose to sell those shares and stop the BS of losing their own money while continue betting on these ride share buffoons.

And all of the intelligent people know how "if more people wanted to sell a stock than buy it, there would be greater supply than demand, and the price would fall." Game Over.
Closed at $55.18 today. You can’t fight the Stupid Money!! :wink:
 

Wolfgang Faust

Well-Known Member
Yeah it is apparent. And considering the Dictator in Chief Wannabe, lost over a billion dollars in less than 10 years, they did not learn. I expect they will follow in the dictators footsteps to bankruptcy somewhere down the road and will face a massive reorganization. They will be looking from the outside in when that happens.
Dictator?
You left lunatics are a real hoot!
Obamao prosecuted more whistleblowers than all other presidents combined.
 

U/L guy

Well-Known Member
"Roberts said, while insisting that bookings were “absolutely a positive metric for us in the first quarter.”"

"A positive metric". Mr. Roberts, if you didn't have the balls to put the actual numbers in an SEC filing where there are repercussions for lying, we certainly don't believe the words coming out of your slimy mouth now.
Lyft management are Trump U graduates.
 

NotanEmployee

Well-Known Member
Its not hard to understand their business model but "bookings" would get confusing between lyft rides and rentals as the rentals is 100% revenue for them. Lyft bookings, only the booking fees are their revenue not the total booking. The total booking is the drivers.
 

Skorpio

Well-Known Member
Expanding to bike and scooters..
Lyft know too well its unprofitable..
Bird model show that well..

Cost per scooter: $500
Life of scooter: 1 month or so
Cost per ride: $3
Number of rider per day: 5

Quick math:
30 days X 15 = $450
$500 - $450 = -$50

I didnt even include cost for charging, repair, transaction fees.
 

Wolfgang Faust

Well-Known Member
Expanding to bike and scooters..
Lyft know too well its unprofitable..
Bird model show that well..

Cost per scooter: $500
Life of scooter: 1 month or so
Cost per ride: $3
Number of rider per day: 5

Quick math:
30 days X 15 = $450
$500 - $450 = -$50

I didnt even include cost for charging, repair, transaction fees.
Life cycle of one month?
WTH?
 
Top